[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 31289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON KLINK

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 10, 1999

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step toward 
legislation that will advance increased competition in the global 
satellite telecommunications market.
  It is my fervent hope that we can complete action on this bill before 
Congress leaves this year, as I believe the Chairman has said he 
intends to do. The sooner Congress enacts comprehensive satellite 
reform legislation, the sooner we can let the private sector begin 
making decisions in this competitive marketplace. But as we move toward 
that legislative objective, it is important that we realize that 
certain issues must be addressed before we can declare such a victory.
  H.R. 3261 is a good first step and I applaud the Chairman for 
bringing it forward. However, I do have concerns about the bill as it 
is introduced that I hope can be resolved as the process moves forward.
  One distinct improvement is that the call for a fresh look, or the 
abrogation or modification of private contracts by the federal 
government, is not in this bill. But there remains in the bill another 
important issue known as Level IV direct access that still needs to be 
resolved. Level IV direct access would unfairly take value away from 
Comsat shareholders. I am very concerned that if this provision is not 
improved it will result in significant harm to Comsat shareholders. 
Similarly, Congress should simply repeal the ownership cap on Comsat 
without conditions, rather than making it contingent upon unrelated 
events as it does now in this legislation.
  Other outstanding differences between the House and Senate must 
similarly be resolved in conference and I urge the Chairman and Ranking 
Democrat to work diligently to do so in a consensus manner. Notably, 
the privatization criteria should be made more flexible. Under the 
penalty of exclusion from the U.S. market, we should be very careful 
not to impose unrealistic privatization requirements that Intelstat 
will not be able to meet. Excluding Intelstat from the U.S. market 
could be extremely harmful to consumers everywhere. I fear that if that 
happened we would be ``cutting our nose off to spite our face'' because 
everyone, Intelstat users and their consumers, would lose. I urge that 
these issues be examined anew to ensure that U.S. consumers will not be 
harmed by any new restrictions imposed by this bill.

                          ____________________